Allowed

Yogesh Aggarwal etc. v. State of Haryana etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Feb 2012CRM-M/3713/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed FIR No. 141 under sections 323, 452, 506, 427 read with section 34 IPC and section 3 of the SC/ST Act. The court found the compromise between petitioners and complainant voluntary and fair, allowing quashing to secure ends of justice despite the non-compoundable nature of offences.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 141 dated 27.5.2011 and all consequential proceedings were quashed.

Yogesh Aggarwal etc. Vs State of Haryana etc. — Caste Atrocities | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-3713 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-3713 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 9^th , 2012

¶5

Yogesh Aggarwal and others

¶6

.... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and another

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana, for the State.

¶14

Mr. Jamshed Ahmed, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent No.2.

¶15

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶16

Yogesh Aggarwal, Narender Aggarwal and Smt. Mithlesh Aggarwal, the petitioners have brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 141 dated 27.5.2011 registered at Police Station Sarai Khwaja District Faridabad for an offence punishable under sections 323, 452, 506, 427 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short,”the Act”) alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of

¶17

Crl. Misc. No.M-3713 of 2012

¶18

¶19

the same, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶20

Annexure P2 is the compromise between the parties. Mr. Jamshed Ahmed, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 and he has admitted the factum of compromise. He has also stated that there is no undue pressure on respondent No. 2, i.e., the complainant for reaching this compromise and that no undue benefit is derived by the petitioners under the terms of the compromise. In support of this, an affidavit of Ramwati wife of Fateh Singh Dangi, the complainant, has also been placed on record in the court today.

¶21

As per the ratio of a decision of a Larger Bench of five Hon`ble

¶22

Judges of this court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 , the cases for offences which are non-compoundable and are not matrimonial offences can also be quashed on the basis of compromise. It has been laid down in the said case as under:-

¶23

“29. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited before me a

¶25

Crl. Misc. No.M-3713 of 2012

¶26

¶27

latest decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu and others Vs. Radhika and another 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 9 . It was a case for a serious offence punishable under section 394 IPC. In this case, FIR was quashed on the basis of compromise. The case here is for an offence punishable under sections 323, 452, 506, 427 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the Act and is not that serious even.

¶28

Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has not disputed the factum of compromise having been arrived between the parties.

¶29

While quashing the proceedings, the court has to satisfy itself that the compromise is just and fair in which no party is taking undue benefit . Simultaneously, it has to be seen that the compromise is free from undue pressure. Once it is found that the compromise is just and fair and is not brought about by undue pressure of one party upon the other, the court has to see that the quashing would secure the ends of justice or that it would prevent abuse of process of law.

¶30

By the compromise, no cause of any friction is left between the parties and, therefore, this compromise can certainly be said to be one arrived at to secure the ends of justice. Nothing appears to the court to be suggestive of pressure, much less undue pressure on the complainant for this compromise. Undue benefit is also not seen to be derived by any party in the matter of compromise. The complainant, respondent No. 2 is present in the court and is represented by a counsel of her choice and, therefore, expert legal advice is available to her.

¶31

¶32

Crl. Misc. No.M-3713 of 2012

¶33

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, continuation of the prosecution for the aforesaid offence, in the said FIR where the complainant would not be ready to support the allegation contained in the FIR, would be a futile exercise. Therefore, I accept the petition and quash FIR No. 141 dated 27.5.2011 registered at Police Station Sarai Khwaja District Faridabad for an offence punishable under sections 323, 452, 506, 427 read with section 34 IPC and section 3 of the Act alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶34

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶35

May 9^th , 2012 som

Yogesh Aggarwal etc. v. State of Haryana etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Aggarwal etc. v. State of Haryana etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Banta Singh Vs Joint Reg., Coop. Soc. Patiala & Ors.

Manjinder Singh Vs Joint Registrar, Coop. Societies, Patiala & Ors.

Parkash Chand Vs State of Punjab through Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Civil Sectt. Chd. and Ors.

Dipti Sharma & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

M/S Dharam Chand Ladha Mal Vs State of Punjab